Remedial Education

Remedial Education
The Cost of Catching Up
By Laura Jimenez, Scott Sargrad, Jessica Morales, and Maggie Thompson September 2016
WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG

Remedial Education
The Cost of Catching Up
By Laura Jimenez, Scott Sargrad, Jessica Morales, and Maggie Thompson
September 2016

Contents
1 Introduction and summary
5 Defining remedial education in context
16 The way forward: Recommendations for
eliminating the need for remedial education
for recent high school graduates
19 Conclusion
20 About the authors
21 Endnotes

Introduction and summary
Across the country, millions of students enroll in college every year only to learn
that they need to take classes that will not count toward their degrees because
they cover material that they should have learned in high school. According to the
authors’ analysis for this report, these remedial courses cost students and their
families serious money—about $1.3 billion across the 50 states and the District of
Columbia every year. What is more, students who take these classes are less likely
to graduate. 1 Simply put, remedial education—or developmental education as it is
also known—is a systemic black hole from which students are unlikely to emerge.
“I felt the remedial courses were a waste of time. … If I was taught and learned how
to think more critically and pushed to achieve more or reach higher standards in
high school, I think I would be doing much better in college, and it would be easier.”
— Courtney, a first generation college student from Texas
Courtney dropped out of college but had reenrolled by the time of the interview
for this report. 2
After defining remedial education, the authors briefly review the typical methods
that institutions employ to identify students in need of remediation and the resulting
national demographics of remediated students. Then, the report touches on national
rates of progress through remedial education for major racial or ethnic and socioeconomic
student groups before focusing on how much money students spend on
these courses that do not count toward a degree. While there are certainly reforms to
the design of remedial education in higher education institutions that could improve
student retention and completion, the recommendations that conclude this report
focus on other ways for the K-12 and higher education systems to eliminate the need
for remedial education for recent high school graduates.
The national rates of remediation are a significant problem. According to college
enrollment statistics, many students are underprepared for college-level work. In
the United States, research shows that anywhere from 40 percent to 60 percent of
first-year college students require remediation in English, math, or both. 3 Remedial
1 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

classes increase students’ time to degree attainment and decrease their likelihood of
completion. 4 While rates vary depending on the source, on-time completion rates of
students who take remedial classes are consistently less than 10 percent. 5
Moreover, the problem is worse for low-income students and students of color,
whose rates of remedial education enrollment are higher than for their white and
higher income peers. According to a recent study, 56 percent of African American
students and 45 percent of Latino students enroll in remedial courses nationwide,
compared with 35 percent of white students. 6
In addition to remedial education’s impact on students’ academic success, its
financial costs are significant and quantifiable. The total figure is staggering:
According to the authors’ analysis, students paid approximately $1.3 billion for
remediation in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. A detailed description of
how the authors calculated these costs is included in the Methodology.
While there may always be a need for remedial education, especially for those
students returning to school after years in the workforce, the need for remedial
education for recent high school graduates can be eliminated by ensuring that high
schools do a better job preparing students for college and careers. The failure to do
so is costing students and the country in so many ways.
The good news is that there is a way forward. By advocating for implementing
higher academic standards such as the Common Core State Standards, students
know that by meeting them, they will not need remediation in college. Raising
standards is only one strategy to eliminate the need for remediation for recent high
school graduates. This report touches on additional efforts that the K-12 and higher
education systems and the federal government can undertake to ease the burden of
remedial education on students. The higher education and K-12 systems together
can increase academic continuity between high school and college by aligning the
requirements for both and being transparent with students about what knowledge,
skills, and coursework are needed to succeed in higher education. These two systems
should also collaborate to reform remedial education by creating consensus around
a definition of remedial education, placement practices, and structures for remedial
education in public higher education institutions. The federal government can
increase accountability for remedial education by tying the receipt of federal student
aid dollars to the reporting of better data on remedial programs, including enrollment,
placement, progress, and completion rates.
“Because of having to
take remedial classes that
don’t count toward your
degree, along with taking
the classes that you are
allowed to take, you
always feel like you are
trying to catch up.”
— Victor, who dropped out of
University of Texas at El Paso. 7
2 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

Methodology
There is no national standardized data on remedial
education enrollment, progress, completion, or cost.
To conduct the analysis for this report, the authors
used two data sets to derive remedial education
enrollment rates. The first data set is from Complete
College America, or CCA, and includes actual total and
remedial education enrollment for the first-time, fulland
part-time fall 2010 cohort, with the exception of
the Florida data, which is from the fall 2009 cohort,
and the Rhode Island data, which is from the fall 2011
cohort. The CCA data set provides actual enrollment
numbers in three mutually exclusive groups—remedial
math, remedial English, and remedial math and
English—for three types of public institutions—twoyear,
four-year “very high research,” 8 and other fouryear
institutions—for full and part-time students who
are U.S. residents, as well as actual remedial rates for
these groups based on actual enrollment.
For the same institution types in states outside of this
data set, the authors first determined total enrollment
using the U.S. Department of Education’s 2014
release of its Integrated Postsecondary Education
Data System, or IPEDS, by combining two figures for
U.S. residents, in order to be consistent with the CCA’s
data: “full-time first-time degree/certificate seeking
students” and “part-time first-time degree/certificate
seeking students” for the fall 2013 cohort. 9 To get an
estimated remedial education enrollment rate, the
authors derived a multiplier—against total enrollment
for each institution type—by reviewing actual
enrollment from the CCA data set. In reviewing the
actual enrollment data for just remedial English, the
authors applied a remedial rate of slightly more than
8 percent for two-year institutions to each institution’s
total enrollment for a multiplier of 0.0814; slightly
more than 1 percent for four-year very high research
institutions for a multiplier of 0.0107; and almost 5
percent for other four-year institutions for a multiplier
of 0.0471. Estimated remedial math enrollment rates
are consistently higher for each institution type, at
a rate of almost 26 percent for two-year institutions,
with the multiplier equaling 0.256; 4 percent for very
high research institutions, with the multiplier equaling
0.04; and slightly more than 18 percent for other
four-year institutions, with the multiplier equaling
0.181. Estimated remedial math and English rates are
generally lower than math remediation rates alone:
slightly more than 25 percent for two year institutions
for a multiplier of 0.253; not quite 1 percent for very
high research four-year institutions for a multiplier of
0.006; and almost 8 percent for other four-year institutions
for a multiplier of 0.0755. In those institutions
that do not offer remedial education in either math,
English, or both, the authors used a remediation rate
of zero percent. For example, South Dakota’s twoyear
institutions do not offer remedial education and
neither do very high research four-year institutions in
Connecticut, Hawaii, Louisiana, Missouri, and South
Dakota. Likewise, Tennessee’s rates are zero percent at
other four-year institutions. Additionally, due to the
quality of the data from a specific sub-set of New York
public institutions, the enrollment rates in remedial
education exclude students in the City University of
New York system, which comprises 22 total institutions,
seven of which are two-year institutions and
collectively enrolled 97,751 students and 15 of which
are four-year institutions and collectively enrolled
174,146 students in the fall of 2013—the year for
which this analysis is primarily based. 10
For the CCA states, the authors assumed that the
provided rates in the data set were medians. For the
non-CCA states, the authors identified the median
percentage for each subject—math, English, and both
math and English—and institution type. For example,
3 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

using the calculation in the previous paragraph, the
authors found that the median rate of remediation
exclusively in math for students in public two-year
institutions in the United States was 26 percent.
To find the remedial education course cost per
institution type per state and then the total cost per
state, the authors estimated that students take eight
college courses per year on average, which breaks
down to four classes per semester, and assumed that
of these, each remedial course costs the same as
each nonremedial course at a single institution. The
authors multiplied estimated or actual enrollment, as
applicable, by the average course cost for each institution
type found in the 2014 IPEDS data, “average net
price—students receiving grant or scholarship aid.” 11
Specifically, the authors multiplied the number of
remedial math or English courses taken at each institution
by the price of one course and then calculated
the total by multiplying both types of courses by the
price of two courses. This resulted in nine subtotals
for each state, as applicable: remedial course cost for
English, math, and both English and math—for mutually
exclusive student counts—for each public institution
type: two-year, four-year very high research, and
other four-year institutions. These sum into a unique,
single total per state.
Student profiles
To identify the students profiled in this report, the
authors used several methods. First, the authors
administered a survey using SurveyMonkey and followed
up with the respondents via phone interviews.
Two individuals responded to the survey. Then, the
authors reached out to their own former classmates
and requested submissions of stories about their
remedial education experiences. The responses to
the following survey questions—verbatim from the
survey instrument—inform the profiles:
• What year did you begin to attend college?
• Where did you attend or are attending college?
• How many remedial courses have you taken or will
you need to take?
• How are you paying for those courses?
• Important part (feel free to add other information):
Do you feel like your high school did not prepare
you for college? Why or why not? Tell us about your
experience with catching up in college through
remedial education and any issues you may have
encountered.
The survey and follow up interviews were conducted
in October and November 2015. 12
Then, the authors divided the summed estimated or
actual remedial education enrollment numbers by the
total enrollment numbers to derive the percentage of
remedial enrollment by state.
4 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

Defining remedial
education in context
Not all postsecondary institutions use the same definition or process for determining
who needs remedial education courses—also referred to as developmental
education or basic skills courses. In general, however, remedial education consists
of below-college-level noncredit courses and trainings in reading, writing, and
math that are aimed at teaching students the academic competencies necessary to
succeed in college-level coursework. 13
A single measure for determining remedial education placement
There is no uniform approach within a state to determine who qualifies for
remedial education. Higher education institutions assess applicant eligibility for
credit-bearing coursework in a variety of ways. For most institutions, a student’s
performance on a college placement or admissions exam determines, or is at
least a factor, in remedial placement. Most four-year institutions rely on a specific
performance standard to determine which students possess the academic knowledge
to pass a credit-bearing college-level course. This performance standard—
commonly known as a “cut score”—is set for tests such as the ACT and SAT to
determine whether or not a student possesses the skill set to succeed in college
level courses. 14 Community colleges, which are typically two-year institutions, rely
on placement exam cut scores on tests such as the ACCUPLACER or COMPASS
exams to determine the need for remedial placement. A student’s score on
the aforementioned tests dictates whether or not the student will need to take
remedial coursework and at what course level the student should be placed in the
remedial course sequence. States, college systems, and institutions can set their
own cut scores for these tests, so that a score placing students into credit-bearing
coursework at one institution may place them in remedial education at another. 15
The ACCUPLACER is a suite
of exams developed by the
College Board that are used
to assess reading, writing,
math, and computer skills.
Thousands of institutions
use ACCUPLACER results to
inform placement decisions
in remedial education and
credit-bearing course work. 16
5 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

Profile: Courtney, a first generation college student
from Texas
Courtney started college directly out of high school in 2011. She took the ACC-
UPLACER exams before she enrolled in college courses. These tests assessed her
basic skills in English and math and determined readiness for college-level work
in these subjects. Her scores on the exams left her ineligible to take credit-bearing
courses, instead placing her into two remedial courses, which she paid for using her
financial aid money.
As the first in her family to go to college, Courtney did not understand the impact of
these tests on her college experience: “My parents didn’t graduate from college or
have any information to help with figuring out that process. … If I had known, I would
have prepared myself for the exam[s].” She had relied on her high school for that
preparation, but it failed her.
Courtney dropped out of college but had reenrolled by the time of the interview for
this profile. 17
A combined measure for determining
remedial education placement
Some states and institutions have committed to using multiple variables—such as
students’ high school course-taking patterns, grade-point average, or a combination
of exam scores and high school records—to identify college readiness and, if
necessary, remedial placement.
6 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

TABLE 1
Examples of states, higher education systems, or colleges
and their respective assessment and placement practices
Single measure
State, higher education
system, or college
City University of
New York, or CUNY
Kentucky
Remedial education assessment and placement practice
CUNY relies on cut scores for the ACT, SAT, or New York Regents Exams for assessing college readiness and placement.
Kentucky relies on minimum cut scores from either the ACT or equal scores for the SAT, or else COMPASS or Kentucky
Online Testing, or KYOTE, for college standards of readiness. If students do not meet the necessary cut score on the ACT
they have the opportunity to take any of the other tests mentioned above to determine course placement.
Combined measure
Davidson County
Community College,
North Carolina
Ivy Tech Community
College, Indiana
Massachusetts
This system and these colleges use Multiple Measures for Placement. This means they assess students’ college readiness
by using a combination of variables such as grade point average and high school course-taking patterns to determine
college readiness and, if necessary, the need for placement assessments. Students meeting GPA and high school course
requirements are considered college ready; they therefore do not need to take a placement exam and instead may enroll
in college credit courses. Those who do not meet high school transcript requirements can submit ACT or SAT test scores to
determine course placement. If students do not meet the minimum cut scores on the ACT or SAT, the student will take a
placement exam to determine remedial placement.
Of the state’s public colleges, 18 out of 19 launched pilot programs using students’ high school GPA or a combination of
using their high school GPA and scores on exams like the SAT to determine course placement.
Sources: Maryland Department of Legislative Services, “College and Career — Are Maryland Students Ready?,” Presentation to the Senate Education, Business, and Administration Subcommittee and the
House Education and Economic Development Subcommittee, February 2015; Council on Postsecondary Education, “College and Career Readiness in Kentucky,” available at http://cpe.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/
E1DA3E91-E750-4A3F-AF1B-DFD858079CC7/0/ACTandSystemwidePlacementStandards.pdf (last accessed July 2016); Kentucky Department of Education, “Assessments” (2015), available at http://education.ky.gov/AA/Assessments/Pages/default.aspx;
Kathy Reeves Bracco and others, “Core to College Evaluation: Exploring the Use of Multiple Measures for Placement into College-Level Courses, Seeking
alternatives or improvements to the use of a single standardized test” (San Francisco: WestEd, 2014), available at https://www.wested.org/wp-content/files_mf/1397164696product55812B.pdf; Center for
Community College Student Engagement, “Expectations Meet Reality: The Underprepared Student and Community Colleges” (2016), available at http://www.ccsse.org/docs/Underprepared_Student.pdf.
Local variations in remedial education course structure
Postsecondary institution design of remedial education courses varies. Students
may be placed in courses that range from one to as many as four sequential levels,
or courses, below college level. These remedial courses can consist of multiple
sequences spread out over multiple semesters or often multiple years. Accordingly,
those who score higher on the admissions or placement exams but still fail to meet
the minimum requirements are placed in higher-level remedial classes, while those
who score lower are placed in lower-level classes. Based on decisions made at the
state or institutional level, some students may be allowed to take remedial courses
alongside credit-bearing courses. However, it is more likely that they must complete
their remedial courses with a passing grade before advancing to the next level
or enrolling in credit-bearing courses in those subjects. In addition, some higher
education institutions may restrict the number of remedial courses in which a
student can enroll or the amount of time that students can spend on remedial
courses. For example, students in remedial education in Nevada must complete all
of their remedial courses within their first year of college. 18
7 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

Magnitude of out-of-pocket costs for remedial education
Profile: Victor, a college student from Texas
In the fall of 2009, Victor was an entering freshman at the University of Texas at El
Paso, or UTEP. He was informed by the university that he needed to take remedial
math classes to prepare him for college level courses. He was surprised and a bit
agitated by the requirement because he believed that his high school should have
prepared him better. According to Victor, “The remedial classes are a repeat of the
information [I] should have learned in high school.” Over time, however, Victor found,
“It was too difficult for me to pay for these remedial courses that I feel were costing
me extra time and money.”
Victor dropped out of UTEP and plans to reenroll in the fall of 2017. 19
In total, the authors estimate that across the United States, it costs students in
remediation and their families close to $1.3 billion in yearly out-of-pocket costs.
These costs range from slightly more than $1 million in Alaska to more than $205
million in California—excluding the figure for the District of Columbia, which
is an extreme outlier at $26,000. The lows of Alaska and the District of Columbia
are likely due to the unique characteristics of these locations. Alaska is a sparsely
populated state and has the lowest numbers of enrolled students out of states with
multiple public institution types in this analysis. The District of Columbia only
has one public four-year institution and as a result, has the lowest number of total
enrolled students and the lowest number of students in remedial education.
8 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

TABLE 2
Out-of-pocket costs for remedial education by state
State
Out-of-pocket costs
State
Out-of-pocket costs
California $205,488,000
Texas $98,749,000
Florida $61,178,000
Ohio $57,426,000
New York $48,216,000
North Carolina $45,530,000
Pennsylvania $44,528,000
Virginia $37,036,000
Illinois $35,827,000
Georgia $35,274,000
New Jersey $32,795,000
Michigan $32,493,000
Inidana $30,719,000
Minnesota $30,438,000
Maryland $30,107,000
Missouri $27,269,000
Oregon $27,043,000
Arizona $26,913,000
Alabama $26,624,000
Colorado $24,642,000
Oklahoma $22,192,000
Mississippi $21,454,000
Kentucky $20,985,000
Massachussetts $20,743,000
Louisiana $19,693,000
Tennessee $19,605,000
Arkansas $18,244,000
Iowa $17,684,000
Kansas $16,631,000
South Carolina $15,552,000
Washington $13,247,000
New Mexico $13,099,000
Wisconsin $12,526,000
Nevada $11,801,000
Connecticut $10,553,000
New Hampshire $9,509,000
Utah $8,912,000
West Virginia $7,426,000
Nebraska $6,943,000
Idaho $6,499,000
Maine $5,973,000
Montana $4,548,000
South Dakota $3,936,000
Hawaii $3,772,000
Vermont $3,534,000
North Dakota $3,523,000
Rhode Island $3,102,000
Delaware $2,760,000
Wyoming $2,432,000
Alaska $1,179,000
Washington, D.C. $26,000
Grand Total $1,286,378,000
Source: Center for American Progress analysis of data from two sources. The first is from the fall 2013 study of student financial aid. See
National Center for Education Statistics, “Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System,” 2014 data files, “Student Financial Aid and Net
Price,” “Institutional Characteristics: Directory Information,”
“Fall Enrollment: Total entering class, retention rates, and student-to-faculty ratio: Fall 2014 (Fall 2013 cohort),” available at http://nces.ed.gov/
ipeds/ (last accessed June 2016); and data from Complete College America, “Co-requisite Remediation: Spanning the Completion Divide”
(2016) available at http://completecollege.org/spanningthedivide/#home.
9 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

Differences in costs within and between states may be due to several factors. The
first is that remedial courses offered at public two-year and four-year institutions
cost different amounts due to the differing costs of attending those institutions.
Nationally, based on the authors’ analysis, students at two-year colleges collectively
paid $920 million for remediation. Students at four-year public very high
research institutions paid $33 million, and students at other four-year public
institutions paid around $333 million in total for the 2013-14 school year, with
the exceptions noted in the Methodology.
A second factor in the variation of costs for remedial education is the placement
rate at two-year institutions versus four-year institutions. Most two-year postsecondary
institutions have open enrollment policies, enrolling high numbers of
students with fewer selectivity factors when compared with most four-year institutions.
As a result, the pool of students needing remedial courses is higher at community
colleges than at four-year institutions. In a recent report, the Community
College Research Center estimated that 40 percent of 2012 high school graduates
who entered a four-year college or university within a year of graduation were
placed into remedial classes. This proportion increases to more than 68 percent
of students entering two-year colleges. 20 The authors of this report found similar
trends in their calculations. For example, students at two-year institutions were
more likely to be enrolled in remedial courses—at a median rate of nearly 60 percent—than
at four-year institutions—at approximately 30 percent—and four-year
research institutions, at a median rate of about 4 percent.
A third factor for these cost differences is that the number of remedial education
courses required for individual students varies. According to the Department of
Education’s National Center for Education Statistics, or NCES, graduates from
a two-year institution who required remediation took an average of two to three
remedial courses. 21 This is consistent with other researchers who have found that
students who graduated from a postsecondary institution and required remediation
took an average of two remedial courses. 22 Those two or three remedial
courses translate to a semester or more devoted to remedial course work, and this
time added comes with a cost.
Despite these high figures for remedial education, what students and their families
pay is only a portion of what it costs to provide remedial education.
10 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

TABLE 3
Remediation rates by state
First-time students enrolled in remediation as a share of total estimated or actual enrollment
State
Remediation rate
State
Remediation rate
FL 93%
NV 85%
OR 78%
NM 58%
MS 55%
HI 55%
MD 52%
AR 51%
OK 50%
IN 48%
OH 48%
KY 48%
CA 47%
ID 47%
NJ 46%
WY 46%
GA 46%
NY 46%
MO 46%
NC 44%
ME 43%
CT 43%
AL 42%
SC 42%
KS 42%
NH 42%
IL 41%
WV 41%
AZ 40%
MA 40%
VA 40%
LA 40%
TX 39%
MI 38%
IA 37%
UT 37%
PA 37%
RI 36%
CO 36%
TN 36%
VT 36%
AK 35%
NE 35%
WA 32%
DE 29%
ND 27%
SD 23%
WI 18%
DC 11%
MT 2%
MN 42%
Source: See Methodology.
11 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

Table 3 lists in descending rank order the actual or estimated enrollment in remedial
education as a percentage of total enrollment for all 50 states and the District
of Columbia; for the purposes of this section, the District will be considered a
state. According to this calculation, most states—30 of them—fall in the national
range of 40 percent to 60 percent annual remediation rates. Twenty-one states fall
outside of this range. Of those above this range, remediation rates span from 78
percent to 93 percent. Of those below this range, all but one span from 11 percent
to 39 percent; the outlier is Montana at 2 percent.
Profile: Jennifer, Colorado, college graduate
At a University of Colorado campus, the dean of the engineering department called
Jennifer into his office to explain that she may have a hard time catching up to her
peers. No other students from her community had elected to pursue the engineering
program. Although she was a stellar student in her home town, Jennifer said the dean
“was sure that my rural Colorado schooling left me behind.”
Jennifer, who was the first person to attend college in her family, said that she “was
determined to prove him wrong.” However, she said that she soon found herself
failing classes and receiving the “worst grades of [her] life” and that her “exemplary
hometown academic record” did not prepare her for the rigors of college.
“I worked hard and spent scarce resources to catch up and eventually went on to
graduate and have a successful career,” Jennifer said. “But I was one of the lucky ones,
and it was harder than it should have been.” 23
The cost of remedial education on student success
While the fiscal costs of remedial education are high, the impact on student
outcomes might be even greater. Research shows that in any given year, anywhere
from 40 percent to 60 percent of all U.S. college students are placed into remedial
education. 24 Furthermore, studies have found that many students drop out before
completing their remedial sequences and never even start credit-bearing college
coursework. Researchers estimate that less than 50 percent of students persist
12 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

past their remedial courses to take credit-bearing courses. 25 This national statistic
mirrors what is happening within states. In Texas, for example, only 50 percent
of the 2010 cohort of community college students who received remediation in
reading completed their remedial courses. (see Table 4) Of that 50 percent, only
37 percent completed their first college-level course. In math, only 33 percent of
Texas students who enrolled in a remedial math course successfully completed the
course, and of this group, only 18 percent went on to complete their first collegelevel
course. 26 Ultimately, students who enroll in remedial courses are far less
likely to complete college than their peers who do not need remediation.
The National Conference of State Legislatures estimates that less than 25 percent
of students who need to take remedial courses in community college complete
their academic programs within eight years. 27 Other figures show that less than 10
percent of students who are placed in remedial education complete a degree—
whether two-year or four-year—on time. 28
FIGURE 1
Percent of students in remedial courses who complete gateway courses
Two-year colleges
Four-year colleges
Passed remedial education courses
20%
36%
Successfully complete subject-specific
gateway course within two years
22% Math
22% English
Source: Complete College America, "Spanning the Divide," available at
http://completecollege.org/spanningthedivide/#far-too-many-students-start-in-remediation (last accessed July 2016).
Figure 1 shows that fewer students successfully complete each successive level of
progression in and through remedial education. The trends are worse for so-called
gateway courses, or foundational courses in mathematics and writing that introduce
students to the analytical thinking and early research methodology that are
key to pursuing a degree major.
13 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

FIGURE 2
National rates of remedial education enrollment by student groups
All students
White
Black
35%
42%
56%
Latino
45%
Pell Grant recipients
55%
Note: Pell Grants are awarded based on demonstrated financial need.
Source: Complete College America, "Spanning the Divide," available at
http://completecollege.org/spanningthedivide/#far-too-many-students-start-in-remediation (last accessed July 2016).
Similar trends are seen in a recent report by Complete College America, which
indicates that 20 percent of students placed in remedial education at two-year
colleges and 36 percent of their counterparts at four-year colleges complete a
remedial education course within two years. Additionally, only 22 percent of students
who complete remedial education courses complete the associated gateway
subject course: for example, a first-level English or math course. 29
This reality is disproportionately true for low-income students and students
of color. According to the Complete College America report, 42 percent of all
students in its study states enroll in remedial education, and this rate is higher for
low-income students and students color. 30
TABLE 4
Rates of progress at Texas public two-year colleges
Percentage of fall 2010 cohort of students below state standard
Progression levels Reading Writing Math
Enrolled in remedial education 65% 60% 76%
Passed remedial education courses 50% 45% 33%
Successfully completed first
college-level course
37% 34% 18%
Note: Cohort total is 125,853.
Source: Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, “2016 Higher Education Almanac,” available at http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/index.
cfm?objectid=A44B548A-E50C-8417-E09BF83FC11EA1EF (last accessed July 2016).
14 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

The disproportionate rates of students of color and low-income students who
recently graduated and took remedial education courses are a result of disparities in
K-12 academic preparation. According to a report from the Texas Higher Education
Coordinating Board, among Texas students that continued on to higher education
in Texas, those who had participated in the free lunch program—which is based on
financial need—were 14 percent less likely than their higher-income peers to meet
college-ready state standards in math, writing, and reading. Students who qualified
for reduced lunch were 10 percent less likely to meet the college-ready standards. 31
Other national academic indicators point to similar trends of disparate rates
of academic proficiency among students of color, who, along with low-income
students, scored lower on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or
NAEP; the SAT; and the ACT. In 2015, for example, 43 percent of white eighth
graders were proficient in math, compared with only 19 percent of Latino eighth
graders and 13 percent of black eighth-grade students. 32 The results are similar in
reading. 33 The same trends hold true in regards to the ACT and the SAT. Based on
scores from students who graduated in 2014 and took the ACT, white students
were 20 percent more likely than Latino students and 30 percent more likely than
black students to meet the ACT college readiness benchmark. 34 Of the students
who took the SAT, only 23 percent of Latinos and about 16 percent of black students
met the SAT college and career readiness benchmark. 35
15 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

The way forward:
Recommendations for eliminating
the need for remedial education
for recent high school graduates
The implementation of higher academic standards in English and math, such as
the Common Core State Standards, is an important step in reducing the need
for remediation. Through the Common Core, students are taught to understand
underlying concepts, “improve their critical thinking skills, approach problems
from different perspectives, and apply what they learn to real-world problems,”
according to a report from the Center for American Progress. 36 The Common
Core standards represent the culmination of decades of research into how students
learn.
States that are implementing the Common Core have already shown positive
outcomes. According to another report from the Center for American Progress,
“A Look at the Education Crisis: Tests, Standards, and the Future of American
Education,” low-income students in Massachusetts are now “among the nation’s
highest performing.” 37 The District of Columbia is another district that has
increased high school graduation rates and observed a jump in student outcomes
by reforming standards. 38 States must continue to implement and improve the
Common Core standards and their aligned assessments.
What are Common Core State Standards?
The National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State
School Officers—in response to the shared call from educators,
policymakers, parents, and other stakeholders—developed the
Common Core State Standards to raise academic standards in
schools. They created a consistent set of stronger achievement
benchmarks in math and English language arts for students in more
than 40 states that chose to adopt the Common Core in 2010. The
standards were designed to ensure that all students, including those
with disabilities and nonnative English speakers, would be taught
with high expectations so that they would have the opportunity to
be academically prepared to succeed in college, as well as the global
workforce, upon graduating from high school. 39
16 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

While multiple steps are necessary to close the gaps in educational achievement
and attainment between students of color, as well as those from lower-income
households, and their white and/or wealthy peers, higher expectations of schools,
teachers, and all students are a much needed and important step in the right direction.
By increasing rigor through higher standards for all, states can better prepare
students for educational success and college readiness. There are roles for students,
institutions of higher education, and states alike to play in eliminating the
need for remedial education.
Students should:
• Encourage their state governments to maintain and improve college- and careerready
academic standards so that all students attain the knowledge and skills
needed to be ready for college. Each student who enters college or the workforce
unprepared has a unique story of how lower expectations at various stages
of their K-12 experience prevented her or him from being prepared for the next
step after completing high school. Sharing these stories with education leaders
and legislators through student voice groups or individual outreach is a simple
and effective way to convey the importance of higher standards.
State K-12 and higher education institutions—working together—should:
• Effectively implement rigorous standards at the elementary and secondary
levels to decrease the need for remediation immediately following high school
graduation.
• Create academic continuity between the K-12 and postsecondary systems so
that the standards and tests necessary to complete high school are aligned with
entrance requirements for credit-bearing coursework in postsecondary education;
further create academic continuity so that units and course level requirements
are the same for high school graduation and college admission.
• Clearly communicate what knowledge and skills are needed for students to
be prepared to succeed in college. This includes providing accurate and timely
information to students about the state academic standards, as well as high
school graduation and college entrance requirements. Students should receive
this information well before their final year of high school in order to allow them
to plan their high school coursework and activities so that they can ensure that
they are college and career ready by the time they graduate.
• Create common definitions, structures, and placement practices for remedial
education within each state to eliminate variations that can cost states and students
time and money.
17 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

The federal government should:
• Require state institutions to have a common definition of remedial education as
a condition of receiving federal financial aid funds. It should also require better
reporting of data on remedial programs, including enrollment, placement, progress,
and completion. The absence of consistent and updated national and state
data regarding cost, the number of students in remedial programs, the level of
remedial sequences students are placed in, demographic breakdowns, and student
success—or lack thereof—in remediation make it impossible for schools
to identify issues with their programs.
18 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

Conclusion
Graduating with a postsecondary degree or other postsecondary credential has
become a necessity in order to successfully compete for stable, middle-class jobs
in today’s economy. Unfortunately, too many students head to college underprepared
for the rigor of college coursework.
Once in college, students can ill afford the additional time and resources
demanded by the remedial courses required to complete their degrees, and as a
result, too many of the most vulnerable students drop out. While there currently is
a need for remedial classes, states, higher education institutions, and K-12 education
systems must do more to successfully prepare students to complete college
and eliminate that need altogether. Higher standards and collaborative efforts
across higher education and K-12 education are essential steps in creating a stronger
education system for all students.
19 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

About the authors
Laura Jimenez is the Director of Standards and Accountability for the K-12
Education Policy team at the Center.
Scott Sargrad is the Managing Director of the K-12 Education Policy team at the
Center for American Progress.
Jessica Morales is a former Policy Advocate at Generation Progress.
Maggie Thompson is the Executive Director of Generation Progress.
20 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

Endnotes
1 Alliance for Excellent Education, “Saving Now and Saving
Later: How High School Reform Can Reduce the Nation’s
Wasted Remediation Dollars” (2011), available at
http://all4ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Saving-
NowSavingLaterRemediation.pdf.
2 Courtney Paredes, email interview with authors,
November 9, 2015.
3 National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education,
“Beyond the Rhetoric: Improving College Readiness
Through Coherent State Policy” (2010), available at
http://www.highereducation.org/reports/college_
readiness/CollegeReadiness.pdf; Alliance for Excellent
Education, “Saving Now and Saving Later”; National
Conference of State Legislatures, “Hot Topics in Higher
Education: Reforming Remedial Education,” available
at http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/improvingcollege-completion-reforming-remedial.aspx
(last
accessed June 2016).
4 Ibid.
5 John Armstrong and Katie Zaback, “College Completion
Rates and Remedial Education Outcomes for Institutions
in Appalachian States” (Washington: Appalachian
Regional Commission, 2014), available at http://www.arc.
gov/assets/research_reports/CollegeCompletionRatesandRemedialOutcomesforAppalachianStates.pdf.
6 Complete College America, “Corequisite Remediation:
Spanning the Completion Divide,” available at http://
completecollege.org/spanningthedivide/#home (last
accessed May 2016).
7 Victor Vargas, email interview with authors, October
19, 2015.
8 The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher
Education at the Center for Postsecondary Research
at the Indiana University School of Education classifies
degree-granting institutes of higher education that are
eligible for federal higher education funds by various descriptors,
including instructional programs and research
activity. “Very high research” is one such classification an
institution can receive. For more information, see The
Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education,
“Definitions,” available at http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/definitions.php
(last accessed August 2016).
9 National Center for Education Statistics, 2011-12 National
Postsecondary Student Aid Study (U.S. Department
of Education, 2013), available at http://nces.ed.gov/
surveys/npsas/; National Center for Education Statistics,
2003-04 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal
Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09) (U.S. Department
of Education, 2013), available at http://nces.ed.gov/
surveys/npsas.
10 City University of New York, “Trends in Total Enrollment:
Fall 1990 - Fall 2015” (2016), available at http://www.
cuny.edu/irdatabook/rpts2_AY_current/ENRL_0012_
ALLYR_TRND.rpt.pdf.
11 National Center for Education Statistics, 2011-12 National
Postsecondary Student Aid Study; National Center
for Education Statistic, 2003-04 Beginning Postsecondary
Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up
(BPS:04/09).
12 Complete College America has been collecting data
for each of the twelve Common College Completion
Metrics from the Alliance of States in the spring of each
year since 2010. For detailed definitions, see Complete
College America, “Complete College America Common
College Completion Metrics Technical Guide” (2016),
available at https://ccacollection.sheeo.org/CCA/ho
meattach/2016/2016MetricsTechnicalGuide.pdf. It is
important to note that South Dakota data only include
institutions that are part of the state’s Board of Regents;
Massachusetts data do not include any University of
Massachusetts campuses; Florida data only include
institutions that are part of the Florida College System;
and Wisconsin data only include the University of
Wisconsin System.
13 National Conference of State Legislatures, “Hot Topics
in Higher Education.”
14 Katherine L. Hughes and Judith Scott-Clayton, “Assessing
Developmental Assessment in Community Colleges”
(New York: Community College Research Center,
2011), available at http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/
k2/attachments/assessing-developmental-assessmentbrief.pdf.
15 Deanna L. Morgan and Michalis P. Michaelides, “Setting
Cut Scores for College Placement” (New York: The
College Board, 2005), available at https://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/publications/2012/7/
researchreport-2005-9-setting-cut-scores-collegeplacement.pdf.
16 Cindy L. James, “ACCUPLACER OnLine: An Accurate
Placement Tool for Developmental Programs?”, Journal
of Developmental Education 30 (2) (2006), available at
http://search.proquest.com/openview/2910036b38b19
2f6ea9b8f9d68e29f24/1?pq-origsite=gscholar.
17 Courtney Paredes, email interview with authors.
18 Nevada System of Higher Education Office of Academic
and Student Affairs, “2013-14 Remedial Placement &
Enrollment Report” (2014), available at http://system.
nevada.edu/tasks/sites/Nshe/assets/File/BoardOfRegents/Agendas/2014/jun-mtgs/asa-refs/ASA-8a.pdf.
19 Victor Vargas, email interview with authors.
20 Elisabeth A. Barnett, Maggie P. Fay, and Lara Pheatt,
“Implementation of High School-to-College Transition
Courses in Four States” (New York: Community College
Research Center, 2016), available at http://ccrc.
tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/high-schoolcollege-transition-four-states.pdf.
21 Author’s analysis of three sources: National Center
for Education Statistics, 2011-12 National Postsecondary
Student Aid Study; National Center for Education
Statistics, 2003-04 Beginning Postsecondary Students
Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09); Judith
Scott-Clayton, Peter M. Crosta, and Clive R. Belfield,
“Improving the Targeting of Treatment: Evidence from
College Remediation.” Working Paper 18457 (National
Bureau of Economic Research, 2014), available at http://
www.nber.org/papers/w18457.pdf.
22 Mary Nguyen Barry and Michael Dannenberg, “Out
of Pocket: The High Cost of Inadequate High Schools
and High School Student Achievement on College
Affordability” (New York: Education Reform Now, 2016),
available at http://educationpost.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/EdReformNow-O-O-P-v7.pdf.
21 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

23 Jennifer Mayer-Sandoval, phone interview with
authors, October 19, 2015.
24 National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education,
“Beyond the Rhetoric.”
25 Brenda Bautsch, “Reforming Remedial Education”
(Washington: National Conference of State Legislatures,
2013), available at http://www.ncsl.org/documents/
educ/REMEDIALEDUCATION_2013.pdf.
26 Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, “2016
Texas Public Higher Education Almanac” (2016),
available at http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/index.
cfm?objectid=A44B548A-E50C-8417-E09BF83FC11E-
A1EF.
27 Bautsch, “Reforming Remedial Education.”
28 Armstrong and Zaback, “College Completion Rates
and Remedial Education Outcomes for Institutions in
Appalachian States.”
29 Ibid.
30 Ibid.
31 Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, “Annual
TSI High School Summary Report” (2014), available at
http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/PDF/5608.PDF?CF
ID=30110123&CFTOKEN=64901581.
32 The Nation’s Report Card, “2015 Mathematics &
Reading Assessments: Both fourth- and eighthgrade
students score lower in mathematics than
in 2013; scores higher than in 1990,” available
at http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_
math_2015/#mathematics?grade=4 (last accessed
August 2016).
33 The Nation’s Report Card, “Average reading for fourthgrade
students not significantly different in comparison
to 2013; eighth-grade students score lower than
2013,” available at http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/
reading_math_2015/#reading?grade=4 (last accessed
August 2016).
34 ACT, “The Condition of College & Career Readiness
2014” (2014), available at https://www.act.org/research/
policymakers/cccr14/pdf/CCCR14-NationalReadiness-
Rpt.pdf.
35 College Board, “2014 College Board Program Results:
SAT,” available at https://www.collegeboard.org/
program-results/2014/sat (last accessed June 2016).
36 Max Marchitello and Catherine Brown, “Math Matters:
How the Common Core Will Help the United States
Bring Up Its Grade on Mathematics Education” (Washington:
Center for American Progress, 2015), available
at https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/
uploads/2015/08/12095408/Marchitello-CCSSmathreportFINAL.pdf.
37 Ulrich Boser, Perpetual Baffour, and Steph Vela, “A
Look at the Education Crisis: Tests, Standards, and the
Future of American Education” (2016), available at
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/
report/2016/01/26/129547/a-look-at-the-educationcrisis/.
38 Ibid.
39 Common Core State Standards Initiative, “Frequently
Asked Questions,” available at http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/frequently-askedquestions/
(last accessed June 2016).
22 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

Our Mission
The Center for American
Progress is an independent,
nonpartisan policy institute
that is dedicated to improving
the lives of all Americans,
through bold, progressive
ideas, as well as strong
leadership and concerted
action. Our aim is not just to
change the conversation, but
to change the country.
Our Values
As progressives, we believe
America should be a land of
boundless opportunity, where
people can climb the ladder
of economic mobility. We
believe we owe it to future
generations to protect the
planet and promote peace
and shared global prosperity.
And we believe an effective
government can earn the
trust of the American people,
champion the common
good over narrow self-interest,
and harness the strength of
our diversity.
Our Approach
We develop new policy ideas,
challenge the media to cover
the issues that truly matter,
and shape the national debate.
With policy teams in major
issue areas, American Progress
can think creatively at the
cross-section of traditional
boundaries to develop ideas
for policymakers that lead to
real change. By employing an
extensive communications
and outreach effort that we
adapt to a rapidly changing
media landscape, we move
our ideas aggressively in the
national policy debate.
1333 H STREET, NW, 10TH FLOOR, WASHINGTON, DC 20005 • TEL: 202-682-1611 • FAX: 202-682-1867 • WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG